I love how the wing of the party that expected us to accept that "starting the process of rescheduling cannabis" is the same thing as "rescheduling cannabis" suddenly has all these ideas about how "balancing the budget" isn't "balancing the budget."
Progressive Politics
Welcome to Progressive Politics! A place for news updates and political discussion from a left perspective. Conservatives and centrists are welcome just try and keep it civil :)
(Sidebar still a work in progress post recommendations if you have them such as reading lists)
get fucked, centrists
gasp
Where's your tolerance?! I thought progressives were nice!
no, i'm an angry progressive. think we should bring back the bull moose party and find a socialist that can gish gallop the way Trump does
Tolerance doesn't mean someone can't be mean to you. It means they give you the same rights they expect you to give them.
This includes the right to say "get fucked" to others and to disassociate from people that are likely to say "get fucked" to you.
Listen sweaty, Martin Luther King didn't create the underground railroad by telling people to get fucked, okay? He was all about nonviolence AKA, ya know being nice to people?? Preeeettttyyy suuuure I know what I'm talking about here.
spoiler
Please, dear readers, don't make me submit to the /s degradation, I'll do it like this instead lol
Anyone who thinks you're being earnest here is beyond hope lol
I think you're right, I'm sometimes more subtle than I mean to be but not this time lol
They got bailed out by the state, along with delayed pensions, and shifting financial burdens from the city to the state that had been previously moved under Governor Cuomo.
The wonders of taxing the rich.
TBF, from the analysis someone else posted, taxing the rich only brought in, like, 550 mil. Which isn't nothing, but it's not like "tax the rich" saved the city - they did a lot of other stuff.
Although true, I think that undersells the effect of even this minor tax on the rich. Every dollar out of a rich person pocket is a dollar out of asset investments portfolios and another dollar in the local economy. Until housing isn't a viable investment vehicle, as an example, that's another dollar not going to increasing the cost of housing. Housing getting cheaper means cost of living goes down not just for the worker but for the stores that sell you your food and your stuff, which has a knock on effect of making cost of living even cheaper.
Taxing the rich, even a small additional percentage, isn't just about raising more money it's about redistributing it from the people who use it in the worst ways possible (corrupting systems, amassing power, buying the world) to the people who use it in the best way possible (paying for food, housing, education, healthcare, hobbies, art, and their communities).
We should tax multi-millionaires out of existence, but any additional tax against the systemic problem of wealth inequality is a win in my book.
The largest share — about $2.3 billion over two years — is expected to come from the city’s delaying certain pension payments, a change that requires state approval and buy-in from municipal unions.
...
To balance this year’s budget, Mr. Mamdani is proposing to delay payments into New York City’s pension funds.
The city has five pension funds representing teachers, police officers, firefighters and other unionized municipal workers. The returns, which are invested, total about $300 billion.
The mayor’s plan, which would save $2.3 billion through the end of the upcoming fiscal year, would involve restructuring the city’s contributions to the funds following an overhaul instituted in 2013 by Bill de Blasio, then the mayor of New York City, and Andrew M. Cuomo, then the governor. At that time, the mayor changed the city’s pension payment obligations following a drop in the assumed rate of return, to 7 percent from 8 percent.
(and fucking, of course: "Police officers’ pensions would be unaffected by the proposed change, as their union, the Police Benevolent Association, is opposed to the plan.")
https://archive.ph/XARnw (NY Times)
So, it sounds like the biggest contribution to the balanced budget is to push problems down the road and delay funding pensions. To a certain extent I get it. He was left with a time bomb that was about to go off, and if he can balance the budget (even if it's by delaying pension payments) he can defuse that time bomb and get some breathing room. I would hope that the unions accept the pension delay because I think having him as mayor is going to pay off for them in the long term.
It's clear that this budget isn't really balanced, at least not long term. It sounds like he's still going to have to make some hard decisions, either cutting benefits or raising revenues. It sounds like one item that needs addressing is the cost per student in NYC which is twice as high as other places. That's going to involve making some hard decisions and taking on some powerful special interests.
And of course, if he can actually fix NYC's biggest problem (the NYPD) he'll go a long way to solving the other probems.
That's the biggest individual contribution, but it was only about 20% of the deficit. The other 80% was actually solved, as far as I can tell.
A huge chunk of it was state spending, or the state agreeing not to force the city to meet state mandates:
Earlier this year, Ms. Hochul committed $1.5 billion in state aid for a host of municipal services. The state budget, which has not yet been finalized, is also expected to include a host of policy changes and revenue increases that will funnel another $4 billion to the city over the next two years.
...
The city is expected to save another $1 billion over two years from several changes, including the state’s expected agreement to delay a class-size mandate in public schools (despite Mr. Mamdani’s support for the mandate as a candidate); more school aid from the state; and the assumption by the state of a larger share of death benefits for families of police officers, firefighters and emergency medical workers.
That's happening because "Ms. Hochul, ... is facing re-election this year, [and] needs Mr. Mamdani’s help in turning out Democratic voters in New York City." After she's securely in office for another 4 year term, who knows how willing she'll be to do those same deals.
If Mandami remains popular, maybe he can keep the governor on his side. It would be ideal if they solved some of these problems as a team instead of working against each-other. I'm hopeful. Right now people seem to be in a very anti-status-quo mood. Mandami is showing how Democratic Socialism is a different way of doing things from the status quo. If he appears to be succeeding, more people will want to work with him. If more people can work with him, he can maybe take on some of the really big challenges that require a lot of people working together. At that point, it's not just a budget that appears to be balanced if you shift the pension burdens into the future. It may actually be a budget that will really work in the long term.
No one gets elected for having a well reasoned plan to actually bring down a budget deficit these days in the long term. The voter can't or won't accept that fixing something that took years to create will take years to get out of. And admitting that is electoral suicide.
All debt is "kicking the can down the road" in some way, having a plan for it seems better than not though.
Except with most debt you're making incremental payments toward it. This is skipping one of your scheduled payments and then claiming that your budget is balanced.
But... it is?
Budgeting is a cash flow management tool. Deferring payment is a cash flow positive action.
Besides the budget you also have a balance sheet, where debt is a liability, that is separately balanced against assets. It's not very clear what that means for governments though, if debts exceed assets, who will reclaim a government?
In a couple months? Would be curious to see how, anyone have a ELI5 sheet of the changes made?
This type of governing has been possible the whole time which is the worst part. Keep up the good work Mamdani and his team.
Leftist critique (not attempting to shit on Mamdani, just food for thought):
"Balancing the budget" on public finances is right wing propaganda. The public sector literally creates an indefinitely big amount of dollars, and fighting for "balancing the budget" implies restricting expenditure arbitrarily. This expenditure could fund welfare policy, improved social services, public housing, infrastructure...
The public sector isn't (or rather shouldn't be in practice) restricted by funding constraints, and any attempt to say otherwise is neoliberal propaganda designed to justify budget cuts to welfare.
Local government isn't a currency issuer though. Sure a city can issue bonds but that's real debt, just like household debt.
Currency issuing governments, well yeah that's another story.
The public sector should be constrainted by funding and that funding should be remediated via taxes.
Money isn't supposed to be infinate. The system as is requires uncapped spending.